DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM: BHADRAK

Dated the 28^th day of November, 2019

C.D Case No. 81 of 2017

                                                   Present 1. Shri Raghunath Kar, President

                                                                2. Shri Basanta Kumar Mallick, Member

                                                                3. Afsara Begum, Member

 Sri Satyabrat Biswal

S/o Biswanath Biswal

Vill: Japharpur,

Ps: Basudevpur,

Dist: Bhadrak

                                                        ……………………. Complainant

            (Versus)

1. The Authorized Officer,

TATA Motors Finance Ltd.,

Balasore Branch

At/Po/Ps: Balasore Town

Dist: Balasore

2. The Branch Manager (Recovery),

TATA MOTORS FINANCE Ltd., Balasore Branch

At/Po/Ps: Balasore Town,

Dist: Balasore

3. The Managing Director,

TATA MOTORS FINANCE Ltd.,

10^th Floor, 106 A& B, Market Chambers,

Nariman Point, Mumbai (MH)

4. The Area Manager,

Tata Motors Ltd.

364, (2^nd Floor), Sahid Nagar,

Janpath, Bhubaneswar- 7561007,

Dist: Khordha

                                                   …………………………..Opp. Parties

Counsel For Complainant: Sri L. Mohanty, Adv & Others

Counsel For the O.Ps No. 1 & 2: Set Ex-parte

Counsel For the OP No. 3: Sri T.K. Harichandan, Adv & Others

Counsel For the OP No. 4: Sri S. K. Mohanty, Adv

Date of hearing: 31.07.2018

Date of order: 28.11.2019

RAGHUNATH KAR, PRESIDENT

 This dispute arises out of the complaint filed by the complainant alleging deficiency of service and unfair trade practice against the O.Ps that the complainant approached the OP No. 1 intending to purchase a TATA HYVA vehicle to earn his daily bread & butter. The OP No. 1 granted the application of the complainant and was agreed to finance Rs 20,00,000/- only. The terms and conditions for repayment of the loan was the complainant would repay the loan amount in 45 monthly installments. The OP No. 1 fixed the installment as Rs 62,076/-. The condition was such the OP No. 1 would collect the cash installment directly from the complainant without arising bank transfer facility. OP No. 1 (i.e. the financer) obtained signatures of the complainant on the loan agreement paper and disbursed the loan amount of Rs 20,00,000/- in favour of the complainant deducting Rs 5,000/- towards documentation charges, Rs 280/- towards stamp recovery charges, & Rs 28,588/- towards insurance. After disbursement of loan amount the complainant purchased the said HYVA and used the same for his daily bread & butter. Copy of R.C of the said vehicle annexed herewith as Annexure- 1. The complainant earned daily bread & butter from the said HYVA. When the complainant submitted the documents for registration before the RTO, Bhadrak, the chasis number engraved by the OP No. 4 company was cross punched and seemed to be tampered for which legal correspondence was made by the RTO, Bhadrak with OP No. 4 company regarding genuineness. Copy of correspondence made between RTO, Bhadrak and the OP company annexed herewith as Annexure- 2. Though the financer company started the monthly installment from the month of September, 2015, the vehicle could not be registered in time due to the negligence of the OP No. 4 company. The authorized official of the OP No. 1, financer, collected cash from the complainant as per oral agreed terms (standing instruction) from his business place. But the collection of the OP financer company is always irregular i.e. on each two months. Copy of the collection statement annexed herewith as Annexure- 3. Till the month of March, 2017 the complainant deposited the EMI but after six months of repayment when the complainant visited to the OP No. 1 to obtain the detailed statement of repayment and outstanding loan account the O.Ps gave one computerized statement in which several discrepancies amount had been charged. So the complainant faced heavy financial burden as well as mental agony for the loan. Annexure- 4 is the deposited receipts, when the collection agent of O.Ps did not come to collect from the last month no result was found to intimate the fat of his loan account. After several requests made by the complainant when the collection agent did not come the complainant personally visited the O.Ps office. But no result was incurred the OP company threatened the complainant to recover the financed vehicle using muscular power. The cause of action arose on 4^th January, 2013 when the O.Ps did not supply the agreement copy as well as the unusual charges shown in the account statement of the loan. The complainant lost his social prestige by the threatening of anti social and hooligans. The complainant is unable to play his vehicle on the road being threatened by the OP. Hence the complainant has sought for the following reliefs.

1. To direct the O.Ps to supply the copy of the loan agreement, detailed loan statement of accounts.

2. To wave out the illegal interest charged upon the complainant.

3. The OP may pay Rs 1,00,000/- towards compensation for mental agony.

Documents filed by the complainant (Xerox copies).

1. Registration certificate particular- 1 sheet- Annexure- 1.

2. Registration certificate- 1 sheet.

3. Conformation of genuineness of the vehicle- 5 sheets- Annexure- 2.

4. Contract details- 2 sheets- Annexure- 3.

5. Receipts- 5 sheets- Annexure- 4.

On the other hand the OP No. 3 & 4 have appeared in this Forum through their concerned advocates and filed their written version respectively. The OP No. 1 & 2 have neither appeared nor filed their written versions. Hence they have been set ex-parte. According to the OP No. 4 he has denied all the allegations made by the complainant against him. The OP No. 4 is the manufacturer of different types of commercial and passenger car and the same are marketed only after being approved by the Automotive Research Association of India (in short ARIA). In the reported judgment of MarutiUdyog Ltd. Vs. Nagendra Prasad Sinha & Anr. II (2009) CPJ 295 (National Commission), the Hon’ble National Commission had observed that “Consumer Protection Act, 1986 Section 21 (h)- Motor Vehicle- Delivery delayed- interest @ 18% per annum on deposited money along with the compensation awarded manufacturer and dealer both held liable, hence revision contention, relationship between the complainant and OP No. 3 was of “principal to principal”- basis- dealer not agent, had no authority to bind company by contract. Order holding complainant liable to pay interest set-aside, complainant at liberty to realize awarded amount from authorized dealer.

The OP No. 3 has also denied all the allegations made by the complainant. He has stated that the present complaint filed by the complainant is an abuse of process of law and is not maintainable because the complainant has suppressed the truth and material facts. The complainant with best known reasons has not pleaded that the complainant had applied voluntarily for the loan facility after fully knowing well about the terms and conditions of the loan. In this regard, reference may be taken of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Bharti Knitting Company Vs. DHL Worldwide Express Courier (1996) 4 SCC 704, whereby it was held that when the complainant signs the contract documents, he is bound by its terms and conditions and the onus would be on him to prove the terms & the circumstances, in which he has signed the contract. It may be noted that the complainant had voluntary applied for the loan after fully conversant with terms and conditions of the said agreement, installments, interest, charges, repossession terms, sale option, etc., hence the complainant thereafter cannot make at the belated stage, any allegation or challenge the contractual terms of the answering OP regarding the said loan. Therefore, the present complaint deserves outright dismissal at the threshold. The OP No. 3 & 4 have also filed some documents and decisions.              

OBSERVATION

We have already perused the complaint and written version filed by the complainant and the O.Ps as well as the documents filed by them. According to our observation the complainant has described in the Para No. 16 of his complaint that the cause of action arose on 4^th January, 2013. According to Section 24 (A) of CP Act “The District Forum, the State Commission or the National Commission shall not admit a complaint unless it is filed within two years from the date of which the cause of action has arisen”. The complainant has filed this case in much more delay. He has filed this complaint on near about delay of 4 years. He has also not filed any petition for condoning delay. As the complaint is filed in delay of 4 years, hence it is not maintainable. The limitation is barred for this complaint. Nothing more is required to be discussed about this complaint. As it is not maintainable so it is dismissible. Hence it is ordered;      

6698606. ORDER

The complaint be and the same is dismissed without cost & compensation against the OP No. 3 & 4 with contest and against OP No. 1 & 2 as ex-parte.

This order is pronounced in the open Forum on this day of 28^th November, 2019 under my hand and seal of the Forum.